Source of the post For example, it has been estimated that for a fluctuation to generate a brain our of this "soup of dissorder" you would need something like 1010^50 years, or 10100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years. That number has 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 zeros. Compare that with the 93 zeros of years of the timespan covered by the video. What the video shows is a crazy small fraction of time compared to what would be needed to show a concious being pop-up by a sudden statistical fluctuation. But even if that is true, using the increasing exponential rate of time used in the video we shouldn't be there in to much time..... right? Wrong, because even with an exponential growth of the rate at which time flows you would still have to wait 3.8 x 1033 times de current age of the universe to get to that part of the video. Each 5 seconds doubling the speed of the video and still you would have to wait an incomprehensible amount of time to see that episode of the history of the universe. But when you reach that part of the video it would be quite fun, each few seconds a conscious being would pop-up into existence, and many other things, few seconds later that would start to become very usual as the speed of the video increases more and more, eventually there should be a moment when the entire universe could pop-up into existence again but this instant is way, way farther away, around a googolplex of times more than the time you would have to wait to get to the Boltzman brain part of the video (remember, this is with exponential increse in the speed of the video).

I was thinking the exact same thing! It would have been an interesting video if they explored that and ended with a new universe suddenly exploding into being in this sea of high entropy.

Starlight Glimmer wrote:> Hopefully we can have a base on the moon and have more space exploration in the next

> decade.Hello! There is a pretty good video on this topic from Kurzgesagt on Youtube that introduced me to this topic. It inspired me to think more about how far we have come in technology in the past few years and the implements it has on our future as a whole, I just hope that the right people that have the money and capabilities do so in a way that gives all nations a equal chance in space exploration. [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtQkz0aRDe8][u][color=#0066cc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtQkz0aRDe8[/color][/u][/url]

eventually there should be a moment when the entire universe could pop-up into existence again but this instant is way, way farther away, around a googolplex of times more than the time you would have to wait to get to the Boltzman brain part of the video (remember, this is with exponential increse in the speed of the video).

This is exactly as I see it, and you could have a oscillating universe in this way!

Silly video with lots of bias, we have enough desalination tech to heavily desalinate if we were ever forced into that situation. Nanotech running away has happened before on Earth, its what life is, and it has hard physical limits on rate of reproduction and use of materials and manipulation of materials.

Care to elaborate? How exactly would widespread atmospheric concentrations of +/- 800ppm carbon dioxide NOT be harmful for overall human health in the long-term? I side with you in the notion that "Swathes" is indeed an exaggeration.

DoctorOfSpace wrote:

Source of the post Silly video with lots of bias, we have enough desalination tech to heavily desalinate if we were ever forced into that situation. Nanotech running away has happened before on Earth,

My thoughts as well. The "Grey Goo" scenario has become something of a trope in doomsday circles.

Source of the post Care to elaborate? How exactly would widespread atmospheric concentrations of +/- 800ppm carbon dioxide NOT be harmful for overall human health in the long-term?

Because that's normal indoor concentration and we would have known if people died from it. A lot of people are exposed to such concentrations long-term and they survive fine. While people spending nearly all their time indoors would benefit from more fresh air, it is for more important reasons than actually the air.

Below 1000 ppm people will be just fine. Above that cognitive abilities begin to drop, like if you're in a crowded room when concentrations might reach a few thousand, but even if you're stuck in a room like that for life, it's not that which is going to kill you.

Cognitive and physical abilities also drop if you live 2000 masl, but you don't die from it, and even though you would perform better at sea level, it would be a stretch to say that living at 2000 masl is harmful.

Source of the post Care to elaborate? How exactly would widespread atmospheric concentrations of +/- 800ppm carbon dioxide NOT be harmful for overall human health in the long-term?

Because that's normal indoor concentration and we would have known if people died from it. A lot of people are exposed to such concentrations long-term and they survive fine. While people spending nearly all their time indoors would benefit from more fresh air, it is for more important reasons than actually the air.

Below 1000 ppm people will be just fine. Above that cognitive abilities begin to drop, like if you're in a crowded room when concentrations might reach a few thousand, but even if you're stuck in a room like that for life, it's not that which is going to kill you.

Cognitive and physical abilities also drop if you live 2000 masl, but you don't die from it, and even though you would perform better at sea level, it would be a stretch to say that living at 2000 masl is harmful.

We can create structures to absorb excess CO2- I see other far worse problems like poorer air quality in and near big cities, more smog, much higher rates of asthma and air pollution in general. I cant even breathe properly until I go up into the mountains and I've had many others tell me their asthma was cured when they moved from LA to Flagstaff. So the air is actually much healthier up in the mountains than it is at sea level. I dont know about 2000 masl, I've found the air much better than sea level at about half that elevation. And it's much better for sleeping because of no light pollution either Melatonin is important for health as it reduces rates of cancer. The pollen and mold has been threw the roof the last few years at sea level also.Most of the US is under water with flooding rains and it's made it nearly impossible to plant anything- in NY we had 20 out of 30 rainy days in April. It's been talked about for a long time but how long before we can regulate our climate and weather and prevent these deluges?I've seen studies showing that we can curb the problem if we halve our CO2 output by 2030. Think this is likely? China is projected to reduce their CO2 output by two thirds by 2030 and that will help a lot.

Actual emissions have tracked near the green models, and China "promises" to try to have emissions peak before 2030. But cutting it by two thirds by 2030 seems unrealistic to put it mildly.

Added: what you probably read was that China pledged to reduce its CO2 emission intensity by about 2/3rds (relative to 2005) by 2030, but emission intensity is defined as emissions per unit of economic activity. 65% reduction in emission intensity corresponds to the lower orange curve in this figure. Grey curves indicate what is necessary to have a good chance of limiting warming to under 2°C.

This "president" is a menace to the planet if he goes through with these EV Tarriffs.

By the way what do you think of the new UN report on human beings being responsible for the extinction of vast quantities of species that is ongoing? I think we've talked about this before, but this report just came out.